Are New Zealand getting too big for their boots ?

by LordDowlais Mon 08 Aug 2016, 9:22 am

First topic message reminder :

Over the last few weeks I have been reading the news on the web and have been following with a lot of interest all the noise coming out of New Zealand. Now I know I get a lot of flak, just because I read the Western Mail/Wales On-Line, but they are running with this issue that New Zealand want a global season, and are threatening to "go it alone" if they do not get their own way.

Now, how do you think this would work for them ? Would everybody else boycott them ? I would suppose they would still play in the RC but what about when they play tests against northern hemisphere sides ? After all that is where the money is. The claim is, that the RFU are the main blockers when it comes to this global season. I am on the side of keeping things as they are. Yes New Zealand are the best in the world, but that does not give them any God given rights to dictate to the rest of the world on how rugby should be scheduled. I am of the opinion, that we should call the bluff of the NZRFU and see how far they get if they do go it alone. If they want to auction off their team to play the highest bidder, then good luck to them, lets see how they go with it. If New Zealand want an international season, then perhaps they can fall in line with the NH.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/blacks-bosses-getting-big-boots-11690978

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/former-wales-coach-steve-hansen-11715746

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/hansen-wants-international-season-by-2020/

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 3:57 pm

Pot Hale wrote:So if the fourth AI is against NZ, then the WRU pays them to play. Or any other SANZAR team scheduled in that slot in previous years.

It comes down to how many matches test teams can reasonably play in a season and what revenue they gain from it. That's true for NZ as it is for Wales. The WRU has a minimum number of test matches it wants to play each year because of their finances, and based on attendances, tickets, venue. Out of window games make more money for the away team. Or additional money if it's a neutral venue e.g. NZ v Irl, Chicago.

I still do not see what point you are trying to make.

Look, if Wales want to play extra games, and they pay the regions for the use of the players, and the regions agree, then who is to argue. If New Zealand want a shorter international season, then they should play less games, that's their decision, why are they demanding 50%, they do not have to play more games, they can say no.

But they won't, they want the £££££'s. But now it seems they want the ££££'s and still play less games. They should get their finances in order before they start dictating how we run our rugby up here.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 6:34 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:So if the fourth AI is against NZ, then the WRU pays them to play. Or any other SANZAR team scheduled in that slot in previous years.

It comes down to how many matches test teams can reasonably play in a season and what revenue they gain from it. That's true for NZ as it is for Wales. The WRU has a minimum number of test matches it wants to play each year because of their finances, and based on attendances, tickets, venue. Out of window games make more money for the away team. Or additional money if it's a neutral venue e.g. NZ v Irl, Chicago.

I still do not see what point you are trying to make.

Look, if Wales want to play extra games, and they pay the regions for the use of the players, and the regions agree, then who is to argue. If New Zealand want a shorter international season, then they should play less games, that's their decision, why are they demanding 50%, they do not have to play more games, they can say no.

But they won't, they want the £££££'s. But now it seems they want the ££££'s and still play less games. They should get their finances in order before they start dictating how we run our rugby up here.

Who are Wales going to play against if they want an out of window 4th test? If New Zealand, Australia and South Africa all say they want greater share of revenue, what does the WRU say?

And If the regions agree to let players play, what does this do to the PRO 12 league matches that you say they should be playing in?

by Welly Mon 15 Aug 2016, 7:03 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:So if the fourth AI is against NZ, then the WRU pays them to play. Or any other SANZAR team scheduled in that slot in previous years.

It comes down to how many matches test teams can reasonably play in a season and what revenue they gain from it. That's true for NZ as it is for Wales. The WRU has a minimum number of test matches it wants to play each year because of their finances, and based on attendances, tickets, venue. Out of window games make more money for the away team. Or additional money if it's a neutral venue e.g. NZ v Irl, Chicago.

I still do not see what point you are trying to make.

Look, if Wales want to play extra games, and they pay the regions for the use of the players, and the regions agree, then who is to argue. If New Zealand want a shorter international season, then they should play less games, that's their decision, why are they demanding 50%, they do not have to play more games, they can say no.

But they won't, they want the £££££'s. But now it seems they want the ££££'s and still play less games. They should get their finances in order before they start dictating how we run our rugby up here.

Who are Wales going to play against if they want an out of window 4th test? If New Zealand, Australia and South Africa all say they want greater share of revenue, what does the WRU say?

And If the regions agree to let players play, what does this do to the PRO 12 league matches that you say they should be playing in?

I like how you are bringing up Aus and SA when they haven't mentioned anything about this.

by emack2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 10:15 pm

The problem is money Rugby union is a PRODUCT the players a "CAN OF BEANS"
Rugby is perceived differently in the NH and SH,in the SH players are
nearly all home grown.
Super Rugby was introduced so Australia had a comp on similar lines
to NPC/Curry Cup.
Sanzar the Money is in SA,Australia have only really NSW,Queensland
of in RU,ARL,or RL are more important.
Super Rugby has grown for political reasons only NZ realistically
can field 5 or more sides of more than even strengths.
NZ alone in SH insist on home based players,centrally contracted.
Super sides ring fenced,so only the odd player is not qualified for them.
SA and Australia you can be playing Rugby anywhere and still play for
your country.
In NZ the All Blacks are the top of the pyramid,Super,Provincial etc.
supports it.
NZ funds go to spreading the wealth around the country from under 5`s
upward.
Tests are shared around the Country and prices are relatively affordable
the Stadia may not be the biggest.BUT things like playing surfaces are
usually immaculate.
Also the AB`s learn to play in ALL conditions which give them a
considerable edge.
Contrast this with the NH version of the product,lip service to Country
before Club.
Reality is the Richest Clubs now get most of the prizes by buying the
best players.
Saracens as an example has about 20 non qualified players,and its
similar for most of the top 5 Clubs and Top14.
England has been given a lot of money so there Players can get up
13 weeks rest a year.
Wales are complaining they are disadvantaged by this what about
the rest of NH sides.
Freeze NZ out certainly,even bar them from the RWCs etc.play a 10
game 6Ns.?
What does that get you how does it improve your game?like it or
not NZ are the market leader they`ve got it right.
NZ could tour the World and still earn plenty of money most of
Europe would be happy to play them.
England and Wales could take the moral high ground and kid themselves
there the Worlds best till they prove it.
As Heynke Meyer said of SA until you can beat NZ regularly ANYWHERE
you`ll never be a great side.
You can bet the Media have blown this up out of all proportion ,perhaps
the International window should be scrapped.
Then under IRB [WRB]diktats Country before Club would prevail for All.
The current situation has been high pointed by Australia having to release
players from RC Squad to play club games in NH.
Agents contracting players in both Hemisphere`s before the contracts
are ended.
A top AUS player sueing his NH Club for breaking his terms of agreement
with Australia.
Toulon being fined for breaking the spending cap,and so on.
In 2020 expect NZ to start Internationals a few weeks early and compromises
all round.

by Pot Hale Tue 16 Aug 2016, 12:18 am

Here's an article published last May in the Times that outlines some of the inter-connected issues including the one about revenue-sharing which has been raised before by SANZAR unions on other issues around RWC, etc.

"World Rugby will find itself at one of the most significant crossroads in the 20-year history of the professional game next week. If it cannot resolve the vast and complicated problems of its future structure, it risks sliding into civil war.

After the 2019 World Cup, there is not a single international fixture scheduled anywhere in the world and there is a reason for this. No one will sign up to a fixture schedule because the professional rugby world cannot agree on how the world schedule should look.

The players are rightly joining this debate with an increasingly loud and frustrated voice, shouting: stop all this nonsense, we are playing too much
The game sings with one voice on only one point: we need to better monetise our product. Yet different factions have different priorities:

● The southern-hemisphere teams want June tours stopped. They want European nations to shift summer tours to July.

● European nations do not want to tour in July, but some are questioning the value of summer tours altogether.

● In a document circulated to European clubs and unions, the southern hemisphere has also set out a vision that involves the European season shifting to start in October and running deeper into late June.

● The southern hemisphere wants to be paid a slice of European income when they tour in November.

● English, French and Celtic clubs want total separation of the fixture list so club games no longer overlap with international games, so that they no longer lose their best players during the Six Nations and autumn internationals.

● The European clubs want to expand their competition. A world final between European and Super Rugby champions is an intended annual event now likely to kick off next year. But a more ambitious proposal, now openly discussed, is a four-yearly World Club Championship.

Many of these priorities already conflict, and that is before we consider that, in trying to make professional rugby a better entertainment that more people will pay more for, the game is causing untold damage to its entertainers.

Yet the performers — the players — are rightly joining this debate with an increasingly loud and frustrated voice, shouting: stop all this nonsense, we are playing too much.

The players’ No 1 priority in this, as voiced officially by the International Rugby Players’ Association (IRPA), is for an annual 12-week break. This summer, though, the England players, will get nine, although it will be more like three or four before they start pre-season.

That the players are being busted and broken is beyond debate. Last week, Christian Day, the chairman of the English arm of the IRPA threatened that if this continues the players would go on strike.

While everyone protects their own interests, Gareth Davies, the chairman of the Welsh Rugby Union, said: “The only easy solution is someone designing a 60-week calendar.” In the absence of that, and given what we know about rugby’s inability to find administrative compromise, you don’t have to go far to find senior stakeholders in the game predicting “war”.

“It’s the one burning issue that everyone is talking about,” Damian Hopley, the chief executive of the English arm of IRPA, said. “If there is going to be a dust-down, then let’s have the scrap. The constant dithering and inertia has to end.”

Indeed, in a public statement, the players’ body has asked the leading stakeholders “to come together and open their minds to the potential benefits of change, and what that may look like”. The statement includes the following from Richie McCaw, the World Cup-winning All Blacks captain: “It could be a game-changer for professional rugby. It would be fantastic to address this longstanding season structure debate once and for all.”

The problem here is this statement was released three years ago. Nothing has changed since. Andrew Hore, chief executive of the Waratahs who held the same title at the Ospreys, has seen the same issue from different sides of the world. He says: “It’s like an alcoholic. World Rugby has got to fess up that there is a problem. World Rugby is saying: ‘It’s OK.’ Well no, it’s not OK.”

The closer we stumble to 2019, with no one reaching agreement and no agreed international fixture list, the more threatening any game of brinkmanship.

Steve Tew, chief executive of the New Zealand rugby union, broke from cover a few weeks back when he said: “We don’t believe the current system is sustainable. We are not going to default to the current one. We are going to force the issue.” In so doing, he threatened that the All Blacks — the biggest brand in the game — would start to organise their own post-2019 fixtures.

At present, the game relies on a schedule masterminded by World Rugby, where all the Tier 1 nations play each other regularly. This is an attempt to spread competition and the big commercial fixtures. The minute the All Blacks go off on their own, the whole system implodes.

And that is not all that Tew meant by “the issue”. The southern-hemisphere nations see the English and French clubs as the enemy; the leakage of their world-class players to contracts in the north with which they cannot compete has become a steady flow. The system does not stack up economically for them.

At present their income from June tours south is dwarfed by what the European nations make from November tours north (bigger crowds, cheaper tickets, more valuable TV rights). Tew believes that his All Blacks deserve a slice of the fortune they create in the north. The RFU, for one, is not shifting on that. The response from New Zealand has come in the form of threats not to come north in November at all. And so the fight begins.

Yet while there is a feeling of battle lines being drawn, there is also a long-shot opportunity. The world rugby calendar is an anachronism the professional game inherited from the amateur days.

The November tours remain a series of one-off games without consequence. Why tour in June and November at all? Because we always have done.

So why not start again. “There is no reason why we shouldn’t wipe the whole slate clean,” Hore says. “There is enough here where, if we get it right, we could produce something really special, unique.”

“If we can crack it,” Rob Nichol, chief executive of the players’ body, said, “how good would that be? It could be magic.”

There are two ways of looking at this. One: take the present calendar and fight over individual weeks. Here is a microcosm of that prospect: the northern hemisphere wants the World Cup shifted two or three weeks back from a mid-September start to the end of August so that it does not overlap so damagingly with the start of the domestic season. But that would bleed into the Rugby Championship and the southern-hemisphere nations would not want that. Immediately you have conflict.

Two: scrap the present calendar completely, work out what will sell and build from there.

The idea of the World Club Championship, for instance: finish both European and Super Rugby competitions after the quarter-finals, take the four semi-finalists from each hemisphere and throw them into one big tournament of eight. Once every four years? It would clearly have merit; under the status quo, it would be impossible.

What the game needs, then, is strong and enlightened leadership. No one is accusing World Rugby of that right now.

“It is proving a complex process,” Brett Gosper, the World Rugby chief executive, says. He says that certain proposals have been made but were rejected.

Last year a small working group from north and south and the IRPA, and led by John Jeffrey (former Scotland flanker, now a World Rugby council member) was formed but got nowhere. This was then passed on to a group of the chief executives of the Tier 1 nations. They last met at the end of February and still no white smoke.

Beaumont, the former England captain and incoming World chairman, has plenty of problems to solve

The whole issue will come to a head at next week’s World Rugby council meeting in Dublin. World Rugby has been waiting for new leadership, in the form of the incoming chairman, Bill Beaumont, who will be voted in (against no other candidate) on Wednesday. Before that, on Monday, the Tier 1 chief executives meet, and their views will be informed by a prior meeting between Sanzar and Six Nations heads.

Then, on Thursday, IRPA meets World Rugby. After all that, many of them will move on to Lyons for next weekend’s European finals.

Do not expect an immediate solution. However, if there is no significant ground made by the end of Lyons, then the stand-off will edge towards a fight.

There are huge issues to be resolved to keep the game balanced and thriving. The southern hemisphere seems to want more concessions than the north. The northern unions have more of a problem in representing clubs as well as country.

Ideally, the European clubs would have a seat at the table but they have not been invited. The Premiership clubs have given the RFU two proposed models, one radical, one more conservative. They can only hope that the RFU fights their corner.

Some nations are in the eye of the storm. France is a massive problem. The Top 14 cannot be squeezed into any reasonable integrated global calendar. And yet the French clubs have money and power and are not shy of taking on the establishment. The danger of club rugby accelerating past the international game has already become reality in France; the Top 14 finals overlap with the France summer tour to Argentina and you can be sure that the players with the overlap will not be travelling.

South Africa are a challenge too. They are tied into Sanzar competitions that are on the wrong time zones and therefore do not serve their TV audience. Plus the players’ travel schedule is preposterous, which is just one reason for the never-ending player exodus to Europe and Japan.

Another is the economics; the three biggest rugby economies are England, France and South Africa and while there are still wealthy investors circling, the conversation about South Africa taking the financially astute option and aligning themselves with Europe is not completely dead. If you started with that clean slate, South Africa would never be where they are now.

Where they and everyone else ends up after 2019 is a complex challenge that must be addressed with urgency. The game structure the professionals inherited from the amateurs no longer works. This can be an opportunity or a battleground; standing still is the one option that no longer works."

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 16 Aug 2016, 1:38 am

Thanks for posting that Pot Hale, I can never be bothered to register for the Times.

The article brings home the point that NZ aren't asking for something in isolation, so just saying "No, you can't have it," doesn't get us anywhere.

What's up for grabs is a conversation about the future of the game.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 16 Aug 2016, 7:52 am

It should be seen as a good opportunity as well to start talking and help further develop and push the game. Anyone trying to work this out in isolation is going to come a cropper.

by Welly Tue 16 Aug 2016, 9:44 am

Trouble is too many unions want different things and bringing different things to the table.

SANZAR have there own problems in club rugby ATM that won't be solved by a what they want.
Pro 12 need money. (People like Hore seem to thing there is a market for welsh teams in the Super rugby which there isn't)
AP IMO is fine (Just saying esp with Bristol coming up).
Top 14 is wayyy to long I mean WTF.
Champions cup not sure what is going on their not helped by the gap between Pro 12 and Top 14/AP
Six Nations is in a good place, but needs to look at countries like Georgia IMO.
Rugby championship have a bit of an attendance issue and needs to look at countries like Samoa, Fiji, Tonga and Japan for expansion.

by beshocked Tue 16 Aug 2016, 10:30 am

emack2 it's very simplistic to say that the best clubs win because they buy in the best players. If it was that simple - Bath would have won more by now. Saracens have a much stronger academy than the likes of Toulon,Bath and Racing - they reaped the dividends of that this season. Kruis-Itoje has become one of the strongest 2nd row combos in Europe and both academy players.

In Farrell Jr they have one of the best place kickers in the world IMO.

Exeter and Wasps had strong seasons because of their development of players.

England have benefitted this season from the English clubs having a strong season in the ERCC.

Exeter have in the last few seasons been the real gem in the AP. Going from a championship side to a side that can now challenge for honours in Europe and the AP.

England are in a strong position, 2nd in the world, nice strength in depth, AP in a decent position, RFU being financially healthy, successful RWC (from a financial POV and attendances).

It's hard IMO for NZ to try and bully England as England holds aces.

In regards to these my response would be:

The southern-hemisphere teams want June tours stopped. They want European nations to shift summer tours to July.

● European nations do not want to tour in July, but some are questioning the value of summer tours altogether.

My compromise would be a tour in July but every 2 years, not every year to give players a rest.

● In a document circulated to European clubs and unions, the southern hemisphere has also set out a vision that involves the European season shifting to start in October and running deeper into late June.

I would say yes to this if the SH made concessions in other areas like below.

● The southern hemisphere wants to be paid a slice of European income when they tour in November.

I would not budge on this. This would be a definite No but would make changes to the season as compromise.

● English, French and Celtic clubs want total separation of the fixture list so club games no longer overlap with international games, so that they no longer lose their best players during the Six Nations and autumn internationals.

This is harder to achieve and I don't have a solution as of yet.

● The European clubs want to expand their competition. A world final between European and Super Rugby champions is an intended annual event now likely to kick off next year. But a more ambitious proposal, now openly discussed, is a four-yearly World Club Championship.

This would be a big No from me. We have too many games as it is.

by ScarletSpiderman Tue 16 Aug 2016, 11:07 am

'Shocked, I'm stealing your layout here, but.

The southern-hemisphere teams want June tours stopped. They want European nations to shift summer tours to July.

● European nations do not want to tour in July, but some are questioning the value of summer tours altogether.

I'd propose that we work in a four year cycle, 1 - NH Tour SH in July, 2 - Lions / Development Nation Tour in July, 3 - SH Tour NH in July, 4 - RWC. No ore Autumn Internationals. With the internationals only being played at home every four years, the ticket prices will undoubtedly go up as they will occur less, and IMO create more of a 'special occasion' feel to the game, as opposed to the position we are in now when we know we will play the top SH sides at home about 3 times in a four year cycle.

● In a document circulated to European clubs and unions, the southern hemisphere has also set out a vision that involves the European season shifting to start in October and running deeper into late June.

I honestly can not see a problem with this, but it would only be put in place if all the other changes go in place too.

● The southern hemisphere wants to be paid a slice of European income when they tour in November.

With the changes I proposed to the Summer Internationals, the SH would see more international tours than the NH (Over 12 years due to the Lions tour).

● English, French and Celtic clubs want total separation of the fixture list so club games no longer overlap with international games, so that they no longer lose their best players during the Six Nations and autumn internationals.

If we lose the AIs then we can look at working the season where the AP/P12/T14 are played at the start of the season, then the Euro Comps, and then the 6Ns at the end leading into the Summer Internationals. IMO this would allow Teams/Players to build their momentum during the season with the higher goals sitting at the end of the season.

● The European clubs want to expand their competition. A world final between European and Super Rugby champions is an intended annual event now likely to kick off next year. But a more ambitious proposal, now openly discussed, is a four-yearly World Club Championship.

I would leave this on the back burner for future discussions, as there are more than enough changes to be made already. This could be brought back up in 4-8 years time after seeing how things have gone

by beshocked Tue 16 Aug 2016, 11:38 am

Scarletspiderman I am flattered you think my layout is any good!

There's a few reasons why we (the NH sides) tour the SH less than the other way round IMO.

Our stadiums are generally bigger and in general we are able to generate more revenue.

It's more competitive when tri nations sides play away because obviously tri nations traditionally have been stronger.

More away tours for NH sides IMO would lead to more lopsided losses. Our records in the tri nations home is bad enough as it is.

Competitiveness is important in internationals too.

Getting rid of AIs completely would drive up the price of tickets which isn't a good thing. There perhaps needs to be some reduction but not completely. Internationals need to try and be inclusive if they can.

Look at the poorly attended Rio Olympics. Is it down to ticket pricing and high costs in general? I think it could well be.

Compare this to 2012 Olympics and 2015 RWC - just shows how much of a financial powerhouse GB is when it comes to sport.

GB are in a very strong position when it comes to sport at the moment (let's not mention football if you're English.... Wales did well though...), it's easier to negotiate from a position of strength.

by Irish Londoner Tue 16 Aug 2016, 12:24 pm

Such a good format is seems a shame not to re-use again !

The southern-hemisphere teams want June tours stopped. They want European nations to shift summer tours to July.

● European nations do not want to tour in July, but some are questioning the value of summer tours altogether.

The NH season ends in early June - how do you keep players match fit for four weeks without additional games ? The value of the summer tours is the revenue it generates for the SANZAR sides - NZ and Aus in particular need the money.

● In a document circulated to European clubs and unions, the southern hemisphere has also set out a vision that involves the European season shifting to start in October and running deeper into late June.

Waiting until October is possible for the Aviva/Pro12 not sure the Top14 would move - maybe start the Championship in September so they get some coverage and also would give the promoted club more time to get itself in order in the close season. Would however impact on November internationals as the league would just be getting into it's stride when everything stops for them. Given this there might also be an issue with scheduling the ERC.

● The southern hemisphere wants to be paid a slice of European income when they tour in November.

Go forth and multiply Kiwis - it's a nice irony that it was the SH who pushed professionalism so much but are now moaning that the NH seem to be better at it.

● English, French and Celtic clubs want total separation of the fixture list so club games no longer overlap with international games, so that they no longer lose their best players during the Six Nations and autumn internationals.

This is possible - if the clubs are happy with either no income when the internationals are on - or alternatively only have B&I/LV type games on with reserve squads during the windows

● The European clubs want to expand their competition. A world final between European and Super Rugby champions is an intended annual event now likely to kick off next year. But a more ambitious proposal, now openly discussed, is a four-yearly World Club Championship.

A world final might be OK - league have one - but I think timing/climate/travelling issues would stop a full on championship - unless the proposal is that teams stay in the NH/SH (wherever it's being held) for weeks at a time- the ERC would have to be suspended for that season as well which might not make sponsors very happy and the time difference would impact on TV viewing - given that not that many people actually watch club rugby.

by Welly Tue 16 Aug 2016, 12:37 pm

I do not agree with moving the Summer tours to july it interrupts any break the International players gets and as said ruins any chance keeping players match fit.

It all a mess and that both Super rugby and NH club rugby have to expect the internationals to clash with the League or give the Internationals 0 rest or rest during the regular season.

Personally Super rugby have made a right mess of how it has expanded.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 16 Aug 2016, 12:41 pm

beshocked wrote:The southern-hemisphere teams want June tours stopped. They want European nations to shift summer tours to July.

● European nations do not want to tour in July, but some are questioning the value of summer tours altogether.

My compromise would be a tour in July but every 2 years, not every year to give players a rest.

That's tricky. Although Woodward's side did it, no NH team these days wants to go on a summer tour before a World Cup, which leaves only three, including one which coincides with a Lions tour. In effect, then we only do two full strength tours every four years anyway.

Also, notwithstanding this year's success, the best year not to tour is the one after a World Cup, because it's already such a long season. Ideally, we should tour the next two seasons, but the Lions gets in the way.

by Pot Hale Tue 16 Aug 2016, 1:28 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:Thanks for posting that Pot Hale, I can never be bothered to register for the Times.

The article brings home the point that NZ aren't asking for something in isolation, so just saying "No, you can't have it," doesn't get us anywhere.

What's up for grabs is a conversation about the future of the game.

Agreed RF. The isolated issue discussion on revenue was annoying when in reality it is part of a much bigger picture that needs to be discussed.

I've wondered before on the question of "what if rugby were starting tomorrow, how would you lay the season out globally?"

I think there is merit in the clean sheet approach. Nothing is sacred on timing going into the discussion. I recall one of the more bombastic Premiership owners (might have been Bruce Craig) during the European Cup battle saying something like:
'the whole calendar should be cleaned up and rearranged into blocks. We don't care when during the year, just that there is clean lines between the various comps similar to what used to happen in SH before Super Rugby decided to expand into a longer season. WR/Unions decide when tests needed to be held and then give the remaining block of weeks to the clubs and we would decide how our comps would be run.'

There is a balance to be struck inevitably between what unions want and what club owners want. Every union wants and needs tests and test income - including English and French ones.

Could all Tier 1 tests be run in one block - 6N/4N in parallel followed by various tours home and away, including Lions?

by emack2 Tue 16 Aug 2016, 2:33 pm

NH is better at it than SH look at that statement?for most of the professional
era.SH has ruled only one NH side has won a RWC in that time,SH have been
IRB 1,2.3 most of the time.
No matter when played very few NH sides have beaten the SH sides anytime,
any where.
Saracens have many Academy players true,BUT most of the top Premier
and Top14 sides have many Overseas players.
In the case of Toulon 25 of 40 were not France qualified players and they
were signing still more.
As pointed out from 2020 there is no settled formats,seasons Club,
internationals,whatever can be arranged to suit ALL parties.

by lostinwales Tue 16 Aug 2016, 3:12 pm

emack2 wrote:NH is better at it than SH look at that statement?for most of the professional
era.SH has ruled only one NH side has won a RWC in that time,SH have been
IRB 1,2.3 most of the time.
No matter when played very few NH sides have beaten the SH sides anytime,
any where.
Saracens have many Academy players true,BUT most of the top Premier
and Top14 sides have many Overseas players.
In the case of Toulon 25 of 40 were not France qualified players and they
were signing still more.
As pointed out from 2020 there is no settled formats,seasons Club,
internationals,whatever can be arranged to suit ALL parties.

How dare someone mention that something in the NH might be done better than in the SH. And to think that if you had read even slightly more carefully you would have noticed that the thing that some in the NH might be doing better is raising money.....

by beshocked Tue 16 Aug 2016, 3:27 pm

Very true lostinwales.

Especially when you consider this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_World_Cup

Capacity of stadiums and attendance as % of capacity.

One of the main reasons for England to get the RWC in 2015 IMO was to raise funds to help subsidise the RWC in NZ and the one in Japan.

by Poorfour Tue 16 Aug 2016, 3:39 pm

emack, while there's no doubt that the SH teams have been the best performers in competitive terms for most of the professional era, I think the point was that NH unions have reached a point where they are generating more money and a bigger fanbase than the SH.

The RFU manages to sell out an 80,000 seater stadium 9-10 times per year, the AP final generally sells out, one of the English clubs sells it out for a regular club game, and there are 3 further club games games that sell 50,000+ tickets. The tv deals that the clubs have struck have effectively added 50% to their income in the last 2 years.

The other NH unions are also selling international games well, though the state of their club games is a bit less secure (and the English club game isn't on a completely sound footing yet).

That does have downsides. Yes, we do have more foreign players in our leagues - though the issue is more a French one, where the clubs and union definitely do not have an entente cordiale, than in the home nations. Ireland limits the number of foreign and project players. The RFU deal with the clubs incentivises teams having 70% EQP matchday squads and most teams are running higher than that. It's not inhibiting good players coming through the academies as recent JRWC results shows.

But the point was that the SH sides - even NZ - are feeling the financial pinch in various ways, whether in absolute attendance and funding or in the player drain to the NH, be it England, France or Japan.

On the one hand you have a more competitively successful set of unions; on the other a more commercially successful set. Neither side is entirely happy with the current season structure, and nor are the players and clubs. Something will need to change. But if NZ really have demanded that everyone dance to their tune, the NH unions are within their rights to tell them to get stuffed.

by TrailApe Tue 16 Aug 2016, 3:49 pm

As pointed out from 2020 there is no settled formats,seasons Club,
internationals,whatever can be arranged to suit ALL parties.

Totally agree, however that given the NH organisations in most cases are well aware that the commercial side of the game has to be looked after, will the SH hemisphere sides guarantee to the NH touring sides the same amount of profit that certain elements of the SH hierarchy are asking for when the SH tour up North?

If they can't why should the NH sides enter into a commercial arrangement that sees them losing money?

All parties remember...

by Welly Tue 16 Aug 2016, 5:09 pm

emack2 wrote:NH is better at it than SH look at that statement?for most of the professional
era.SH has ruled only one NH side has won a RWC in that time,SH have been
IRB 1,2.3 most of the time.
No matter when played very few NH sides have beaten the SH sides anytime,
any where.
Saracens have many Academy players true,BUT most of the top Premier
and Top14 sides have many Overseas players.
In the case of Toulon 25 of 40 were not France qualified players and they
were signing still more.
As pointed out from 2020 there is no settled formats,seasons Club,
internationals,whatever can be arranged to suit ALL parties.

Erm in terms of the premiership
Percentage of squad EQP
Saracens 60.5%
Exeter 73.2%
Wasps 75.6%
Leicester 66.7%
Saints 76.3%
Sale 60.5%

also don't you find it sad that despite all the SH superiority on the pitch that off the pitch it is in desperate times.

England game has improved over the last year alone with no help from NZ.

But again all NZ brings to the table is the fact they are the "All Blacks" they want the most but are not willing to give way on other options. Again as a comp whilst Super is higher quality in general it is suffering as a competition due to crap planning and organization by SANZAR. I mean how crap is NZRFU that it failed to capitalized on the all blacks brand so far. I mean it should of been playing test in USA ages ago IMO.

Since SH wanted the game to be pro first they have manged to find themselves lagging by some way.

Again i doubt most of Europe would be happy to pay them half the takings Wales and Scotland are not in the position to be able to do that ATM, France certainly wouldn't be strong armed. Only really Ireland and Italy would be NZ options if they where to go down that road.

I mean people say all parties but many of the ideas conflict with each other.

by Welly Tue 16 Aug 2016, 5:25 pm

SANZAR are not exactly planning on playing their rugby championship games in Europe for the good of the game.

by Exiledinborders Tue 16 Aug 2016, 7:59 pm

emack2 wrote:NH is better at it than SH look at that statement?for most of the professional
era.SH has ruled only one NH side has won a RWC in that time,SH have been
IRB 1,2.3 most of the time.
No matter when played very few NH sides have beaten the SH sides anytime,
any where.
Saracens have many Academy players true,BUT most of the top Premier
and Top14 sides have many Overseas players.
In the case of Toulon 25 of 40 were not France qualified players and they
were signing still more.
As pointed out from 2020 there is no settled formats,seasons Club,
internationals,whatever can be arranged to suit ALL parties.

The AP teams that are not English Qualified are far more likely to be either from other NH countries or from Pacific Islands rather than from NZ, SA or Australia.

by emack2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:04 am

Really?your stats prove some of my points.mostly a third at least are
a quarter to a third of the squads in Premiership.
In the top 14 its much higher,most of PI`s in Europe were born in
NZ of PI stock[dual qualified]
Often under the rules currently NZ and other O/s players are recycled
for teams like England.
NZ has more players born in other teams than in the NZ,look at Samoa,
Tonga,even Australia,Japan.
The Times article makes it clear there IS no International or other
calender post 2019.
Planning for all comps world wide can now be arranged so club
v country doesn't occur.
Revenue decided on a mutual basis with sensible compromises
every where.
RU isn`t so big it can exist without everyone pulling together.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 7:31 am

There are many compromises which can and should be made, led by wr, but there will still be club vs country.

by Cyril Wed 17 Aug 2016, 8:34 am

emack2 wrote:
NZ has more players born in other teams than in the NZ,look at Samoa,
Tonga,even Australia,Japan.

NZ have poached some fans from the NH though. Mercenaries seeking personal glory... Wink

by aucklandlaurie Wed 17 Aug 2016, 8:42 am

TrailApe wrote:
As pointed out from 2020 there is no settled formats,seasons Club,
internationals,whatever can be arranged to suit ALL parties.

Totally agree, however that given the NH organisations in most cases are well aware that the commercial side of the game has to be looked after, will the SH hemisphere sides guarantee to the NH touring sides the same amount of profit that certain elements of the SH hierarchy are asking for when the SH tour up North?

If they can't why should the NH sides enter into a commercial arrangement that sees them losing money?

All parties remember...

Depends on the quality of the teams you send down here, being polite I would describe some of the teams that come down here in June as being no more than ordinary. the main reason being that the players are absolutely flogged and just want to spend some time on a sunny beach somewhere rather then play a three match test series.

by TrailApe Wed 17 Aug 2016, 9:08 am

Depends on the quality of the teams you send down here, being polite I would describe some of the teams that come down here in June as being no more than ordinary.

Really?

England won 3-0, the Irish were very competitive, the Scots won (although Japan is really NH) and the French were...the French, so all I can surmise is that you are looking at this from a NZ perspective.

Look if NZ don't want touring sides to visit them no problem, I'm sure the rest of the world can scrape by without having to travel the ends of the earth to play the AB's.

I can imagine it's going to get pretty lonely down there though.

by beshocked Wed 17 Aug 2016, 9:35 am

To be fair Trailape up till this season, the NH's record away in SH has been very poor.

Doesn't help that France seem to be in free fall. Their predicament reminds me of English football - too many foreign players in the leagues. Also they have infighting - seems like a Toulon vs Clermont standoff in regards to the salary cap there.

Structure wise, Wales are struggling because the horses has already bolted. The likes of Charteris,North,Hook,Hibbard,A.Jones,Roberts, Faletau,Priestland,Phillips etc should be back playing in Wales. It's not just the money that lures players over to the AP and Top 14.

Ireland have a pretty decent structure but the Pro12 is not a harmonious league IMO, when you have 4 different countries it's not easy to agree is it?

Foreign players are fine, if there's a strong academy and good development of players in conjunction with this.

Signing the best isn't enough because you need to get the best from them.

England have had one of the strongest U20s sides in the world in the last few years so it's no fluke that England are now no 2 to in the world. The players have been coming through.

NZ should have really started negotiating straight after the RWC as England were at a real low in terms of world rankings and there was obviously anger at going out of the RWC. Instead less than a year on England have rebuilt and are in a much stronger position, making negotiating harder for NZ.

Instead of negotiating with 8th in the world it's negotiating with 2nd in the world.

I realise negotiation is not just between England and NZ but England are the richest rugby union in the world and I am sure NZ will want to squeeze revenue out of them as well as the other NH sides.

by Irish Londoner Wed 17 Aug 2016, 9:36 am

emack2 wrote:Really?your stats prove some of my points.mostly a third at least are a quarter to a third of the squads in Premiership. In the top 14 its much higher,most of PI`s in Europe were born in NZ of PI stock[dual qualified] Often under the rules currently NZ and other O/s players are recycled for teams like England.
Good point - there should a restriction on the numbers of players not "home nation" qualified so that SH players can't rock up to here on the basis of their grandparents passport.

NZ has more players born in other teams than in the NZ,look at Samoa, Tonga,even Australia,Japan.
Blame WR and the grandparent/residence rule

The Times article makes it clear there IS no International or other calender post 2019.
I think you'll find that the six nations is still going to be taking place

Planning for all comps world wide can now be arranged so club v country doesn't occur.
This is a possibilty providing it doesn't mean summer rugby for the NH, moves the six nations schedule, etc.

Revenue decided on a mutual basis with sensible compromises every where.
Sensible compromise, you keep what you earn in your home matches

RU isn`t so big it can exist without everyone pulling together.
NZ and Aus RU isn`t so big it can exist without everyone pulling together. FTFY

by emack2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 9:45 am

Oh Cyril you little tease,nearly a new comment laughing

What he is saying is,by the record NZ is the most
difficult place to tour anywhere.
IF you let Club games have priority due to current
programs.
Weakened teams will struggle more so than a
full strength side.
England v NZ today in England,home win every chance,
a weakened squad in Wellington in the RAIN? laughing

by No 7&1/2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 9:45 am

To be fair Irish, it's a possibility that it could mean summer rugby for the NH and moves to the international calendar.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 9:48 am

Would be very intertesting emack. England would be a challenge for anyone anywhere at present. Interesting point on end of season tours etc as thats why I favour a global season.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 17 Aug 2016, 9:50 am

TrailApe wrote:
Depends on the quality of the teams you send down here, being polite I would describe some of the teams that come down here in June as being no more than ordinary.

Really?

England won 3-0, the Irish were very competitive, the Scots won (although Japan is really NH) and the French were...the French, so all I can surmise is that you are looking at this from a NZ perspective.

Look if NZ don't want touring sides to visit them no problem, I'm sure the rest of the world can scrape by without having to travel the ends of the earth to play the AB's.

I can imagine it's going to get pretty lonely down there though.

You asked what I foolishly presumed was a reasonable question.
I foolishly gave you not only a reasonable answer but also a reason for my answer, which by coincidence happens to be the central issue to this whole topic.
at no time did I ever say NZ doesn't want touring sides to visit them. And yes I was looking at this from a New Zealand perspective, Do you have a problem with that?

by TrailApe Wed 17 Aug 2016, 10:26 am

I foolishly gave you not only a reasonable answer but also a reason for my answer, which by coincidence happens to be the central issue to this whole topic

.

You made an incorrect statement. You said that "some of the teams that come down here in June as being no more than ordinary".

I pointed out that the results did not show that this was the case and therefore you reason for this "the main reason being that the players are absolutely flogged" does not really apply, so your complaint is not accurate and is not the "central issue to this whole topic".

And if the touring NH sides were "absolutely flogged", it doesn't same much for the Aussies and Saffers does it - one whitewash and one close series win?

And yes I do have a problem with NZ trying to manipulate the sport for their own ends whilst taking on the mantle of 'Protector of Rugby Union'.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 10:30 am

Disagree with that Trail. We are sending players after a long season, without even following on from the 6Ns so they're not even that match sharp. If we were to come into rugby now and design the ideal scenario on a global level I doubt (m)any would choose what we currently have.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 17 Aug 2016, 10:45 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:...Depends on the quality of the teams you send down here...

Well, after 2014, the NZRU doesn't have a leg to stand on there. To the amazement of World Rugby, NZ demanded an interpretation of the June international window which precluded England from fielding a full strength team in the First Test that year.

As I say above, I'm in favour of NZ calling for this discussion. In the best case, we'll put some parts of the calendar in order, to allow better planning. At the very worst, we'll learn that we all have even less common ground than we imagined. Still, that would be an advance on the current state of affairs where we just muddle on.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 17 Aug 2016, 10:56 am

TrailApe wrote:
I foolishly gave you not only a reasonable answer but also a reason for my answer, which by coincidence happens to be the central issue to this whole topic
.

You made an incorrect statement. You said that "some of the teams that come down here in June as being no more than ordinary".

I pointed out that the results did not show that this was the case and therefore you reason for this "the main reason being that the players are absolutely flogged" does not really apply, so your complaint is not accurate and is not the "central issue to this whole topic".

And if the touring NH sides were "absolutely flogged", it doesn't same much for the Aussies and Saffers does it - one whitewash and one close series win?

And yes I do have a problem with NZ trying to manipulate the sport for their own ends whilst taking on the mantle of 'Protector of Rugby Union'.

You're going to have to help me here trailape, but honestly I cant even remember when New Zealand last lost a test in June, I go to most tests in Auckland, and often wonder how many times the results would have been reversed had the Northern Hemisphere players not been playing continually months of rugby. The human body can not take it, it diminishes the quality of the product, and test rugby ends up losing its integrity.

You probably wont believe me when I tell you this, as you appear to have made up your mind, but New Zealand is not trying to manipulate the sport, but there is some truth in the "Protector of Rugby Union" mantle, someone has to. someone has to draw a line in the sand. The sport is only as good as its players.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 17 Aug 2016, 11:15 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:...Depends on the quality of the teams you send down here...

Well, after 2014, the NZRU doesn't have a leg to stand on there. To the amazement of World Rugby, NZ demanded an interpretation of the June international window which precluded England from fielding a full strength team in the First Test that year.

As I say above, I'm in favour of NZ calling for this discussion. In the best case, we'll put some parts of the calendar in order, to allow better planning. At the very worst, we'll learn that we all have even less common ground than we imagined. Still, that would be an advance on the current state of affairs where we just muddle on.

RF we dont pick the England side, but it is timely that you raise that point because from memory that situation arose from nothing more than a congested fixture lists, even this year we had players playing Super rugby in South Africa within 6 days after the final whistle of the 3rd Welsh test. its utterly insane. You are bang on when you say we cant just "muddle on". the guy who looks like hes going to try and broker all this is Pichot.

by Poorfour Wed 17 Aug 2016, 11:45 am

laurie, no-one would argue that winning in NZ in June isn't something that happens often - though the depleted 2014 England team (shorn of its AP finalists) came extremely close. But then NZ don't lose at home to anyone very often - according to Wikipedia their last home losses were in 2009, and they seem to lose a home test (or two) on average every 5-6 years. The current winning streak is 41 games. Well done, you all blacks. A record like that makes every other side look distinctly average.

And, equally, I think we all agree that the playing schedule in the NH in particular has become too demanding on individuals. That didn't stop England winning 3 tests in Australia after a 13 month season, but it's not sustainable. The new deal between the RFU and the English clubs includes a mandatory 13 weeks of rest for the EPS players, which goes some way towards fixing it, but a global shakeup seems necessary.

But that doesn't just mean everyone fitting in with a schedule that suits New Zealand.

The financial heart of the game is in the Northern Hemisphere and will remain there for as long as World Rugby needs to keep coming back to the NH every second RWC to top up its coffers. This is where the live audiences are and there the big tv audiences are, and it's likely to remain that way unless the sport takes off in a big way in the US.

The reality of that is that in changing the season structure, careful thought has to be given to how to ensure the popularity of the sport in the NH isn't compromised. A global season structure (which I am in favour of) will be better for rugby only if it doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 17 Aug 2016, 12:11 pm

Poorfour wrote:laurie, no-one would argue that winning in NZ in June isn't something that happens often - though the depleted 2014 England team (shorn of its AP finalists) came extremely close. But then NZ don't lose at home to anyone very often - according to Wikipedia their last home losses were in 2009, and they seem to lose a home test (or two) on average every 5-6 years. The current winning streak is 41 games. Well done, you all blacks. A record like that makes every other side look distinctly average.

And, equally, I think we all agree that the playing schedule in the NH in particular has become too demanding on individuals. That didn't stop England winning 3 tests in Australia after a 13 month season, but it's not sustainable. The new deal between the RFU and the English clubs includes a mandatory 13 weeks of rest for the EPS players, which goes some way towards fixing it, but a global shakeup seems necessary.

But that doesn't just mean everyone fitting in with a schedule that suits New Zealand.

The financial heart of the game is in the Northern Hemisphere and will remain there for as long as World Rugby needs to keep coming back to the NH every second RWC to top up its coffers. This is where the live audiences are and there the big tv audiences are, and it's likely to remain that way unless the sport takes off in a big way in the US.

The reality of that is that in changing the season structure, careful thought has to be given to how to ensure the popularity of the sport in the NH isn't compromised. A global season structure (which I am in favour of) will be better for rugby only if it doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Poorfour, I agree with you.
The big audiences (TV and ground) will pay premium dollar to watch the premium teams in the World, bit like how formula one needs Ferrari, Mercs and McLaren (threw in the Kiwi sentimental team as well). to get the top turnover.

One way to ensure the sport in the Northern hemisphere isnt compromised is by playing the best quality game possible, and I thought English Rugby League turned itself around when it went from Muddy Northern England quagmires to fast hard dry summer tracks. Just saying.

by Irish Londoner Wed 17 Aug 2016, 1:43 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: One way to ensure the sport in the Northern hemisphere isnt compromised is by playing the best quality game possible, and I thought English Rugby League turned itself around when it went from Muddy Northern England quagmires to fast hard dry summer tracks. Just saying.

Laurie, most of the evidence shows that moving to the summer hasn't done any good to RL - outside of the powerhouse teams - Leeds, Wigan, St. Helens, - attendances are declining, amateur participation declining, and there has been no sustainable expansion of the game outside the Northern Corridor. The only benefit is that it gives Sky Sports something to show during a quiet time in the rest of the sporting calendar.

Moving rugby in GB & I to the summer would also cause a massive disconnect between the amateur level game and the professional one, the amateur sport here is based on the school year/winter game and there is no way that it could be moved without probably causing a huge drop in players.

Last point, rugby's meant to be played in a quagmire, that's why we have forwards !

by Poorfour Wed 17 Aug 2016, 2:56 pm

...but English RL are still rubbish compared to their SH counterparts.

I could certainly see a case for not playing in NH January and February - but July and August would be pretty challenging in terms of heat, the firmness of the grounds and attendance. There probably isn't scope for a two-phase year, though.

by Welly Wed 17 Aug 2016, 2:58 pm

I would like someone to give one example of how a global schedule would work?

You have to cater for both
33 weeks of NH rugby (pro 12, AP and Europe)
Around 21 weeks of super rugby
Around 11 weeks or ITM cup and Currie cup rugby
8 weeks of six nations
8 weeks of the rugby championships
4/5 weeks of AI's
4/5 weeks of June tests
And 1 game of Aus v NZ.

With the international games clashing with neither Super rugby or NH domestic leagues, with the summer test in July and give the players around 2/1 months off.

Also the rugby league example is not good in the UK considering it isn't exactly in a stronger situation.

The style of play isn't the iusse let's face it Super rugby is considered the top stuff yet SA is the only one that attendance hasn't really dropped, Aus rugby union is in a mess club wise.

And SA is the only one bringing in the big money for SANZAR.

by TrailApe Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:24 pm

You're going to have to help me here trailape, but honestly I cant even remember when New Zealand last lost a test in June, I go to most tests in Auckland

Well I had a fine blurb to respond to this, however Poorfour has already put it much better. To precis it – not many teams win in NZ, so that’s a bit of a red herring.

However

The big audiences (TV and ground) will pay premium dollar to watch the premium teams in the World, bit like how formula one needs Ferrari, Mercs and McLaren (threw in the Kiwi sentimental team as well). to get the top turnover.

Just reading about F1’s financial problems and trust me, you don’t want Rugby to go anywhere near the place that F1 is in at the moment

This year there are worries ahead for F1,– the Financial Times ran a story in April ‘Formula One teams suffer sharp fall in sponsorship income’ which features a quote from Chime Sports Media, F1’s largest sponsor finder.

“We have an industry that is exploding in cost, and collectively they are not able to gather and get those costs under control.” He argues that rising costs in the sport are forcing up the cost of attending Grands Prix at venues such as Silverstone in the UK, threatening to make events unaffordable for many spectators.

Do you really want Rugby to develop the business model of F1? Or did you just like to compare the AB brand to the Ferrari brand? Bear in mind Ferrari have a budget (in 2013) of £250 million, so that’s some serious dosh they throw about – do the AB’s have pockets that deep?

And as for this

One way to ensure the sport in the Northern hemisphere isnt compromised is by playing the best quality game possible, and I thought English Rugby League turned itself around when it went from Muddy Northern England quagmires to fast hard dry summer tracks. Just saying.

Why RL moved to the summer season was because it’s heartland – a band across the North of England - is heavily dominated by Association Football. It held its own for quite a while but after the Taylor Report English football matches became less of a toxic affair which had a knock on effect for League, it was struggling, attendances were dropping (no surprise when they were competing against Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Everton, et al) and the RL Fraternity were desperately looking for inspiration.

Then a certain Rupert Murdoch – who was having problems with the Australian Rugby League people and Kerry Packer – came along and waved an extremely large amount of money around, it was too good an opportunity to miss and suddenly English RL moved to a summer game – not to merge with the SH but as direct competition for TV audiences. That Murdoch is one classy guy. So nothing about fast hard try tracks (it rains all across the year in the UK, so no real dry season) but all about SH money.

Interestingly there was a study ran by US firm in 2003.

Injury rates in rugby league football: impact of change in playing season.
Gissane C1, Jennings D, Kerr K, White J.
Author information
1Department of Health and Social Care, Brunel University, Isleworth, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
In 1996, the professional rugby league moved its playing season from the autumn and winter months to the spring and summer.
PURPOSE:
To determine whether the change in playing season altered the risk of player injury.
STUDY DESIGN:
Prospectively collected data comparing two cohorts.
METHODS:
Injuries incurred by all players in one club during match play were recorded over 9 seasons: 4 winter (138 games) and 5 summer (144 games). Each injury was classified according to site, type, player position, activity at the time of injury, and number of games missed as a result of injury.
RESULTS:
The total exposure time during this study was 4876 player-hours (winter, 2386, summer, 2490). The relative risk of injury doubled after the move from winter to summer. Winter rugby accounted for 72 injuries, and summer rugby, for 150 injuries.
CONCLUSIONS:
Risk of injury to players in a professional rugby league club greatly increased as a result of changing the playing calendar, possibly as a result of environmental factors. However, other factors, such as increased conditioning levels, which have been a direct consequence of players moving to full-time professionalism, may have increased injury potential.

So whilst RL in England moved to a summer season (for a price – Very Happy

see what I did there) similar conditions do not exist for Union and it’s going to take a hell of a lot of concessions from the SH for the NH to move its seasons. And to be honest, I can’t see what the SH can bring to the table to make the NH decide to change its current competitions which work for us and generate a hell of a lot of money.

by emack2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:27 pm

The whole point is that come 2020 none of the above need be in place.
RC and 6n`s both may expand to a 2 tier comps with relegation for
2 sides.
Super Rugby and NH comps may change to a 2 tier one as well.
June/November tests end tests arranged to mutual benefit and
if you travel half way around the world to play someone.
Then a share of the profits is reasonable for every one.
See todays Planet Rugby for thoughts on this,Wales Clubs are
on life support.
England Clubs those that have large EPS membership do all
right.
BUT what about the others Second and third Div Clubs they
deserve help to.
France are now limiting the Squads of Non-Qualified players in
Top14.
Eventually it will feed down to the AP,its ok for ENGLAND to say
blow you jack were inboard.
Not many of the other 6Ns are in the same boat you could find
that far from no one boycotting NZ and the SH it could be them
that is hit.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:40 pm

Sharing profits is a none starter really as no one is going to agree to give a team like Samoa 50% (or any sizable fee reall) when they contribute nothing to costs of actually holding the match, maintenance of stadia etc.

by Welly Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:42 pm

Okay.
I would rather have the six nations set into a pool system not a 2 tier comp with relation for 2 sides the jump between Romania and Spain is to big ATM
RC could do it with Fiji, Samoa, Japan and Tonga as tier 2.

AP would have zero benefit changing it to a two tier league and it could kill off a large amount of support in places like Sale etc.

June and November test whilst sounds nice prob won't work and could damage tier 2 chances of developing even more.

Welsh clubs need the WRU to have a big rethink, but whoever wrote that piece is a bit thick if they think that London Welsh are a chance to develop in London, unless WRU provide them with funds to either expand Current stadium or relocate to somewhere like Oxford it still wouldn't alive its problems.

The Championship is slowly starting to get money in France have already said it wants a fully pro 3 td Div and is aiming for it in 10 years.

Again I think you over value all blacks ATM it isn't even the biggest money maker in SANZAR.

It needs to sort out its own League first before trying to change the NH clubs.

Also you seem to think that England lack EQ players but the fact is England have 12 teams in its top league with around 60% EQ, NZ have 5 clubs in there top flight of course it will have a higher % of home players.

by TrailApe Wed 17 Aug 2016, 3:51 pm

Not many of the other 6Ns are in the same boat you could find
that far from no one boycotting NZ and the SH it could be them
that is hit.

I think you are missing the point that the Welsh, Irish and Scottish national sides really depend on their International gate receipts to keep going - so if you expect to dip into their profits up here and not re-imburse them when they tour the SH then you will find the NH teams will present a united front. Half share of a series in Twickenham (80k), the Millenium (74.5k) Murreyfield (67.1k) is going to generate a lot more money than anything in NZ could - how are you going to square this particular circle?

It's not greed its survival.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 17 Aug 2016, 11:35 pm

TrailApe wrote:
Not many of the other 6Ns are in the same boat you could find
that far from no one boycotting NZ and the SH it could be them
that is hit.

I think you are missing the point that the Welsh, Irish and Scottish national sides really depend on their International gate receipts to keep going - so if you expect to dip into their profits up here and not re-imburse them when they tour the SH then you will find the NH teams will present a united front. Half share of a series in Twickenham (80k), the Millenium (74.5k) Murreyfield (67.1k) is going to generate a lot more money than anything in NZ could - how are you going to square this particular circle?

It's not greed its survival.

How often do you guys come down and visit us as it is? The All Blacks make an annual pilgrimage every Autumn to see you, right neighbourly folks us.

by Sponsored content